How to improve climate modeling and prediction

Review outlines techniques to achieve better climate simulation

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

We are changing the Earth system at a unprecedented speed without knowing the consequences in detail. Increasingly detailed, physics-based models are improving steadily, but an in-depth understanding of the persisting uncertainties is still lacking. The two main challenges have been to obtain the neccesary amount of detail in the models and to accurately predict how anthropogenic carbon dioxide disturbs the climate’s intrinsic, natural variability. A path to surmounting both of these obstacles are now laid out in a comprehensive review published in Reviews of Modern Physics by Michael Ghil and Valerio Lucarini from the EU Horizon 2020 climate science project TiPES.

– We propose ideas to perform much more effective climate simulations than the traditional approach of relying exclusively on bigger and bigger models allows. And we show how to extract much more information at much higher predictive power from those models. We think it is a valuable, original and much more effective way than a lot of things that are being done, says Valerio Lucarini, professor in mathematics and statistics at the University of Reading, UK and at CEN, the Institute of meteorology, University of Hamburg, Germany.

Such an approach is urgently needed, because nowadays climate models generally fail in performing two important tasks.

First, they cannot reduce the uncertainty in determining the mean global temperature at the surface after a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This number is called equlibrium climate sensitivity and in 1979 it was computed to 1,5-4 degrees Celsius. Since then the uncertainty has grown. Today it is 1,5-6 degrees in spite of decades of improvement to numerical models and huge gains in computational power over the same period.

Second, climate models struggle to predict tipping points, which occur when a subsystem i.e. a sea current, an ice sheet, a landscape, an eco system suddenly and irrevocably shift from one state to another. These kind of events are well documented in historical records and pose a major threat to modern societies. Still, they are not predicted by the high end climate models that the IPCC assessments rely upon.

These difficulties are grounded in the fact that mathematical methodology used in most high resolution climate calculations does not reproduce well deterministically chaotic behavior nor the associated uncertainties in the presence of time-dependent forcing.

Chaotic behavior is intrinsic to the Earth system as very different physical, chemical, geological and biological processes like cloud formation, sedimentation, weathering, ocean currents, wind patterns, moisture, photosynthesis etc. range in timescales from microseconds to million of years. Apart from that, the system is forced mainly by solar radiation which varies naturally over time, but also by antropogenic changes to the atmosphere. Thus, the Earth system is highly complex, deterministically chaotic, stochastically perturbed and never in equilibrium.

– What we are doing is essentially extending deterministic chaos to a much more general mathematical framework, which provides the tools to determine the response of the climate system to all sorts of forcings, deterministic as well as stochastic, explains Michael Ghil, professor at Ecole Normale Supérieure and PSL University in Paris, France and at the University of California, Los Angeles, USA.

The fundamental ideas are not that new. The theory was developed decades ago, but as a very difficult mathematical theory which calls for cooperation between experts in different fields to be implemented in climate models. Such interdisciplinary approaches involving the climate science community as well as experts in applied mathematics, theoretical physics and dynamical systems theory have been slowly emerging. The authors hope the review paper will accelerate this tendency as it describes the mathematical tools needed for such work.

– We present a self-consistent understanding of climate change and climate variability in a well defined coherent framework. I think that is an important step in solving the problem. Because first of all you have to pose it correctly. So the idea is – if we use the conceptual tools we discuss extensively in our paper, we might hope to help climate science and climate modelling make a leap forward, says Valerio Lucarini.

###

The TiPES project is an EU Horizon 2020 interdisciplinary climate science project on tipping points in the Earth system. TiPES is coordinated and led by The Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

From EurekAlert!

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

68 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 1, 2020 7:40 am

The new improved models will allow them to have greater accuracy and certainty about their belief system as long as no one expects them to validate those models and compare their output to reality.

n.n
August 1, 2020 8:54 am

A chaotic system and processes by virtue of incomplete, insufficient characterization and a computationally unwieldy problem space. A scientific (i.e. limited frame of reference) problem with cause.

Walt D.
August 1, 2020 9:46 am




A very interesting article.

The Dark Lord
August 1, 2020 9:57 am

step 1: stop trying

step 2: see step 1

August 1, 2020 10:05 am

These difficulties are grounded notin the fact that mathematical methodology used in most high resolution climate calculations does not reproduce well deterministically chaotic behavior nor the associated uncertainties in the presence of time-dependent forcing.,” but rather that there is no physically valid, monosemous, complete and falsifiable physical theory of the terrestrial climate (my addition and bold).

And that includes physical theory able to resolve the cloud response to an annual 0.035 W/m^2 change in CO2 forcing.

One cannot calculate what one does not know. One would think Michael Ghil (BS ME,; PhD Math) and Valerio Lucarini (BSc, PhD, Physics) might understand that.

Wolf at the door
August 1, 2020 12:28 pm

Curious George and Dark Lord – I stand corrected.(Who am I to suggest that they waste Pat Frank Bob Tisdale and Chris Essex’s time ?)

Clyde Spencer
August 1, 2020 2:01 pm

The Eureka Alert press release says, … tipping points, which occur when a subsystem … suddenly and irrevocably shift [sic] from one state to another.” Other than the formation of the Earth’s solid crust, and the Oxygen Revolution, I can’t think of any other “tipping points” from which the Earth has not recovered.

Unexamined assumptions are a significant problem in reaching logically correct conclusions.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 1, 2020 3:42 pm

That’s what I was thinking. What atmospheric tipping points?

There has never been a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth in the past, even when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were many times higher than today, so why should we expect one in the future?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 1, 2020 5:53 pm

If “The present is the key to the past” [James Hutton], then surely the past must be the key to the future.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 1, 2020 11:04 pm

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” ― George Orwell, 1984

TRM
August 1, 2020 8:56 pm

Make it a contest. All models are currently funded. They must all make predictions about the future climate. In 10 years cut funding to zero for the bottom half. Repeat.

Any new comers who claim to have a great idea get one try with funding.

Alasdair Fairbairn
August 2, 2020 2:59 am

“We are changing the Earth system at a unprecedented speed without knowing the consequences in detail.”

This says much and should properly have been amended to: “ARE WE changing the Earth system at a unprecedented speed without knowing the consequences in detail. “?

The first statement ensures bias in the models as it requires the models to support the statement ; hence affecting any fine tuning or weight given to what might be considered inconvenient science. The second would be considered proper scientific practice.

The article is a good example of Groupthink not quite sure about what it is thinking.

Meanwhile back on earth it might be a good idea if the models took a better note of the thermodynamics of water , particularly during phase change where the sensitivity coefficient is a big fat Zero. The trouble here being that this bit of science lies outside the groupthink box and could be inconvenient.

August 2, 2020 1:58 pm

[[First, they cannot reduce the uncertainty in determining the mean global temperature at the surface after a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This number is called equlibrium climate sensitivity and in 1979 it was computed to 1,5-4 degrees Celsius. Since then the uncertainty has grown. Today it is 1,5-6 degrees in spite of decades of improvement to numerical models and huge gains in computational power over the same period.]]

How many times do I have to repeat it. The effect of atmospheric CO2 on Earth surface temperatures is ZERO, ZED, ZILCHO, NADA, BUMPKIS!

The Sun’s radiation causes all Earth surface temperatures, which fall within the range of -50C to +50C. The surface cools via conduction, convection, and Planck radiation. CO2’s absorption wavelength of 15 microns only absorbs -80C radiation, completely outside that range. If it can’t absorb it, then it can’t trap it or reradiate it, and if it didn’t it couldn’t melt an ice cube. All of the real heat that’s radiated by the surface goes straight to space, and CO2 can’t stop it.

Looks like the hardcore Marxists at the U.N. and its IPCC picked the wrong getaway driver.

If you think my physics is wrong, please tell me. I’d really like to know why cold is hot, and how -80C photons of any power can cause heatwaves, droughts, thunderstorms, etc. The silence is deafening from the gigantic IPCC money machine that keeps perpetuating the CO2 global warming hoax and never offers a refund.

http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

Mark Pawelek
August 2, 2020 11:04 pm

Modelers still think they can model the world without applying empirical tests and validations. I guess if you shower them with money and make no attempt to audit what they do, then they will ‘believe’ just that. They will believe in whatever gets them most freedom and least accountability.

We aren’t actually changing the climate at any speed at all. Their climate models continue to change an imaginary model climate.